Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:53:10 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: tadayuki@mediaone.net Cc: will@csociety.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <200201230453.g0N4rEQ67571@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020121233923.75304d3c.tadayuki@mediaone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[moved to -ports] On 21 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: >> >> Yes -- for the foreseable future. We are talking source >> >> incompatibility only, btw. If such incompatibility is introduced, >> >> it will break the building of a port. This breakage will signal >> >> the need for a fix. >> > You can break binary compatibility without breaking source >> > compatibility. And it's not rare case. >> Would you be able to offer an example on how this is relevant to the >> argument? Thanks! > I meant: If port A depends on port B's library. port B updated. Assume > it breaks binary compatibility. port A build will not be broken, so > forget PORTREVISION bump. People update port B, but not port A. so > port A will stop working. Well, what I changed only affects the situation, when port A is built after port B: An earlier version of port B is already present and port A is known to work fine with it. So it detects the acceptable version of the libB and compiles/links with it. I don't think my idea affects the way upgrades are handled. BTW, come to think of it, the whole *_DEPENDS system should, probably, be changed to look for the file/library in the +CONTENTS files under /var/db/pkg... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201230453.g0N4rEQ67571>